Political scientist Hahrie Han's comments on ideological and goal oriented fragmentation within social movements were of particular interest to me. When asked about her opinion on the March for Science's twenty goals for policy reform, she states that movements with many differentiated goals set within a greater overarching initiative (as opposed to a single clearly desired outcome) may run the risk of confusing policy makers with their requests. "Let’s say they had one very clear thing like “We want to double NSF funding,” and they got 3.5 million people out. If I’m an elected official, I’d think: I really need to pay attention to NSF funding!" This statement brought my thoughts back to the current campus climate, more specifically reactions to the most recent deplorable racist attack on our students of color. In my opinion, the list of demands offered up by certain organizations of color on campus has done exactly that which Han has advised against: it has strayed from a single unified goal and has instead morphed into a fusion of multiple co-opted ideologies that runs the risk of confusing university administrators and preventing actual change. For example, the list of demands was posted before the AKA sorority released their official statement, and thus was also publicized without their consultation. Furthermore, language such as,"divest from fossil fuels, the Israeli Apartheid State, and private prisons including Aramark," distracts from the more pressing goal of bringing the perpetrators of this specific hate crime to justice; it asks the university to take stances on hot button and highly politicized issues not directly tied to instances of racism that have been carried out on campus.
Great analysis, your points are very interesting. I definitely do agree that a single, unified message is most effective in bringing about change, and based on what we've learned about social movements and mobilization structures, uniting around specific goals can achieve great success for a movement. I am interested to see how this issue is going to be handled in the coming days!
I would agree. with the criticism in regards to the hate crime that took place on campus, however in my opinion the divest from fossil fuels campaign could have particular impact because it is easy to narrow it down into very specific demands and suggestions. If anything it is possible to raise awareness on issues that are very important such as the use of fossil fuels on campus. Besides this, I also believe it is important to to touch upon targets that are controversial, because it is something that triggers student to think critically. In the case of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as an international I have come to realize that the perception most people here have about the issue is vary different from the way the conflict is perceived in other parts of the world. Thus, I think it would be very beneficial to have more discussions about it.
Political scientist Hahrie Han's comments on ideological and goal oriented fragmentation within social movements were of particular interest to me. When asked about her opinion on the March for Science's twenty goals for policy reform, she states that movements with many differentiated goals set within a greater overarching initiative (as opposed to a single clearly desired outcome) may run the risk of confusing policy makers with their requests. "Let’s say they had one very clear thing like “We want to double NSF funding,” and they got 3.5 million people out. If I’m an elected official, I’d think: I really need to pay attention to NSF funding!"
ReplyDeleteThis statement brought my thoughts back to the current campus climate, more specifically reactions to the most recent deplorable racist attack on our students of color. In my opinion, the list of demands offered up by certain organizations of color on campus has done exactly that which Han has advised against: it has strayed from a single unified goal and has instead morphed into a fusion of multiple co-opted ideologies that runs the risk of confusing university administrators and preventing actual change. For example,
the list of demands was posted before the AKA sorority released their official statement, and thus was also publicized without their consultation. Furthermore, language such as,"divest from fossil fuels, the Israeli Apartheid State, and private prisons including Aramark," distracts from the more pressing goal of bringing the perpetrators of this specific hate crime to justice; it asks the university to take stances on hot button and highly politicized issues not directly tied to instances of racism that have been carried out on campus.
Great analysis, your points are very interesting. I definitely do agree that a single, unified message is most effective in bringing about change, and based on what we've learned about social movements and mobilization structures, uniting around specific goals can achieve great success for a movement. I am interested to see how this issue is going to be handled in the coming days!
DeleteI would agree. with the criticism in regards to the hate crime that took place on campus, however in my opinion the divest from fossil fuels campaign could have particular impact because it is easy to narrow it down into very specific demands and suggestions. If anything it is possible to raise awareness on issues that are very important such as the use of fossil fuels on campus. Besides this, I also believe it is important to to touch upon targets that are controversial, because it is something that triggers student to think critically. In the case of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as an international I have come to realize that the perception most people here have about the issue is vary different from the way the conflict is perceived in other parts of the world. Thus, I think it would be very beneficial to have more discussions about it.
Delete